RE: Why don't we know the date Jesus rose up from the dead?
April 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2010 at 12:02 pm by Minimalist.)
AS Bishop Warburton noted in the 1770's: the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."
Many 19th century scholars regarded Warburton as correct on the matter for a number of reasons but with the growth of protestant fundamentalism in the late 19th/early 20th century it became increasingly embarrassing for the fundies that their godboy was left out of the history books (probably the same motivation that Eusebius felt for inventing it in the first place.)
Even though it gives a virtual bullet-point presentation of 4th century xtian belief they decided that at least some part of it must be real. Again, if there had been some reference to the TF when Origen wrote in the 3d century then Origen would have to have been the stupidest bastard in history not to use it to clinch his argument in Contra Celsus. Instead, although he makes specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews ( where the TF was later inserted!) he not only does not make any reference to it he goes on to say that Josephus did not know Christ.
Xtians will twist their scrotums into knots trying to get around this simple fact but the fact remains.
While there have been many treatments of the issue if you can find this:
"Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium" by Ken Olson
you'll be further enlightened.
If you haven't read Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle" C/P you might find it interesting. Especially the part where he discusses "Mark" as Jewish Midrash and then actually dissects a couple of pages of it with OT references.
A little murky in spots but definitely worth the read.
Many 19th century scholars regarded Warburton as correct on the matter for a number of reasons but with the growth of protestant fundamentalism in the late 19th/early 20th century it became increasingly embarrassing for the fundies that their godboy was left out of the history books (probably the same motivation that Eusebius felt for inventing it in the first place.)
Even though it gives a virtual bullet-point presentation of 4th century xtian belief they decided that at least some part of it must be real. Again, if there had been some reference to the TF when Origen wrote in the 3d century then Origen would have to have been the stupidest bastard in history not to use it to clinch his argument in Contra Celsus. Instead, although he makes specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews ( where the TF was later inserted!) he not only does not make any reference to it he goes on to say that Josephus did not know Christ.
Xtians will twist their scrotums into knots trying to get around this simple fact but the fact remains.
While there have been many treatments of the issue if you can find this:
"Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium" by Ken Olson
you'll be further enlightened.
(April 1, 2010 at 4:37 am)chatpilot Wrote: Here is an interesting theory of my own Min regarding where Mark may have got his ideas from. In the book of Isaiah chapter 53 we are introduced to a suffering messiah which Christians take to be a prophecy regarding Christ and his crucifixion. It is my belief that the whole Christ story itself is plagiarized and culled mainly from the O.T. When I was a Christian I could not see this I basically told people that the O.T. was the prophecies of things to come and the N.T. the fulfillment of those things in the ministry and person of Jesus Christ. Note that the entire chapter regarding this suffering messiah is written in past tense which I find very interesting indeed.
If you haven't read Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle" C/P you might find it interesting. Especially the part where he discusses "Mark" as Jewish Midrash and then actually dissects a couple of pages of it with OT references.
A little murky in spots but definitely worth the read.
